"I am not interested in discussing things with people who more interested i stroking their egos rather than seeking the truth"

Say what? I keep asking questions in which I don't get answers. I keep asking you to EXPLAIN yourself, instead of just repeating the same points (which I have even tried to summarise). Also, "seeking the truth" sounds more and more like "listen to what Xeno has to say" (how exactly am I stroking my ego? by not agreeing?)

"whereas in more free-market style economies where copyright and patent laws are not adhered to (like China) there tends to be more competition."

There is more businesses (as in small shops and shopping malls...would you beleive that they turned the underground walkways into a 4 storey underground shopping complex that is larger than the whole downtown area of my home city? I get lost in there) Also more competition doesn't mean there is more innovation, and just by the very nature of it means there is more risk involved with developing a new product. Risk is something VERY real, and you have yet to address this point. Higher risk means a company will only invest in products that can make a profit (with higher competition the number of products that they invest in then drops).

""keep it secret which works AGAINST what you are trying to achieve"

Overall, more people than fewer would make their discoveries readily available to others and wouldn't keep it secret / sell patent rights to it, especially those discoveries whose applications would provide many benefits to people's lives."

WHY???? It is all well and good repeating the same lines, but I am asking you to explain HOW and WHY.

"Even those companies who would try and keep their discoveries a secret for a period wouldn't be able to do so for very long, and, secondly, it would be widely known that such a discovery were possible, and there would be plenty of further research by the other companies to discover it for themselves and thereby negate the competitive advantage the first company had."

If the invention was used internally, this would only be possible through corporate espionage. Also, why do companies seek to have an advantage? They do so to produce a better/cheaper product than their competitors in order to achieve more of a market share. If the competitor is able to achieve the same outcome without any cost/effort, then the first company doesn't gain an edge but instead wastes money on the research and development (ie. money spent then needs to be taken out of the profits of a cheaper item in which their competitors are also making).

"The free-market (if it ever existed) would like the most efficient, best solution, and wouldn't want to mess around with anything less than the best solution to any given problem."

How do you determine the best solution? Is the first solution the best? In fact, under a patent system, when a company has an invention (that meets the needs it was designed for so it is the best solution available and further research isn't exactly needed) the competitors are then forced to seek a BETTER solution to the problem (which leads to more innovation). Take for example coal burning for power generation, at the time, it was the best solution that met the needs of its use and did not disadvantage anyone as far as they knew (perfect solution? I think not). Needs change often through the act of innovation (did we really think apps on a phone were possible when the first mobile phone was released? Ok, lets put it this way, 2 competitors in a phone market, Company 1 releases a new phone that links into the body and is able to receive commands from our thoughts (so you can answer a phone without moving or speaking).

YOUR WORLD:

Company B then reverse engineers the technology and replicates it for their phone (creating competition on the market). Company A is then forced in an equal playing field to recoup their losses which means less profits or higher prices. Higher prices means that people will go to Company B to buy their product and save money OR Company A losses investor confidence and their shareprice drops. In this system, you are trying to make the companies playing fields completely equal, as in they both get the same products, and due to a market system are forced to sell it at the cheapest possible price. Sounds great right? This doesn't lead to innovation though, because anyone who invests in R&D is then automatically at a disadvantage (costs of the company are then higher, but profits still remain equal to that of the competitors, since the competitors just copy the item anyway).

PATENT WORLD:

Company B is forced to innovate their product using their own research to come up with something even cooler. They then decide that they are able to not only receive commands, but completely integrate this into the body (we are the Borg!) making the HUD inbuilt into the eye's information, the sound is directly feed into the ear/brain, and taps nervous system to issue commands. Company A has the advantage originally because they have the newer more existing product, all the while Company B is coming out with a new product that is then new and hip giving them the advantage. Competition is then based around the features of the product on offer, and leading each company to be constantly developing new products to remain in the market.

So sure, the first solution might be considered the best, but only because you are killing innovative competition and making it completely economical in nature.

""everytime a patent is applied for, without patents people will keep it secret to maintain their competative edge (which you also mentioned). "

They do so already.  The patent / intellectual protection system has failed, and only holds back those nations who in their ignorance and arrogance stubbornly adhere to it, moving forward blind to the true state of affairs in the world."

How is it holding it back? You once again make a statement that it does, and then consider that fact. I once again remind you that you wanted an academic discussion on this, so I am once again, asking you to clarify your statements. I make the point that a system that tries to stop secrets by protecting them is good, but you say that it doesn't stop that (and recognising it is bad by stating that it is currently causing problems). You then want a system that would FORCE more people to keep it secret.

"I am reminded of the parable of the blind:

Call the first guy the judiciary, the second the corporate / private sector, the third the government, the fourth the general public, and the guy leading them all is the banking system."

Irrelevant to the discussion unless you can try and prove that the current system is a system of the blind leading the blind (which you don't you just keep stating things over and over without supporting it), and even then this reference is pointless. Please stay on target here and answer my questions (and funnily my questions and comments are not changing, please stop trying to reduce this argument down by calling me stupid or saying that I am arguing for the sake of arguing because my argument is not changing throughout the course of this discussion. One exception was with Flint but that was not a discussion that is affecting THIS discussion).

"Because people would have invented the product / service to improve people's lives, not for profit.  They would like to see it widely used."

But it comes through self need, so it has nothing to do with altruistic values...furthermore, they cannot garauntee recuporating costs (money would need to be raised first, which delays inventions).

"I'm done with this discussion."

Woohoo...I win!